December 13, 2007

Categories:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved contempt resolutions against Karl Rove, the former top aide to President Bush, and Joshua Bolten, the current White House chief of staff. The vote was 12-7.

The criminal contempt resolutions now move to the Senate floor, although no action on them is expected until next year.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking member of Judiciary, voted in favor of issuing the contempt resolutions, saying the committee's oversight responsibilities must be upheld.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) also supported the resolutions.

"It is a vote that I would prefer not to make," Specter said. "It is a vote I make with reluctance."

The House Judiciary Committee has also approved contempt resolutions against Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not set a date for a floor vote yet.

The committee subpoenaed Rove and Bolten over the summer as part of its probe into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. Bush, citing executive privilege, refused to allow Rove and Bolten to testify or turn over documents to the panel. Bolten was subpoenaed in his role as custodian of White House records, while Rve called to testify over his knowledge on the role politics played in the firings.

Leahy said that he and Specter had working to modify the resolutions since they were first debated last week, but added that the panel must enforce its subpoenas if it is to be able to conduct effective oversight of the executive branch.

"The White House counsel asserts that executive privilege covers all documents and information in the possession of the White House," Leahy said, referring to White House counsel Fred Fielding. "They have further and claimed immunity even to have to appear and respond to this committee's subpoenas fr Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten. And they contend that their blanket claim of executive privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word."

Leahy called this stance "a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional committees."

Update: White House officials dismissed the Judiciary Committee vote as a political stunt, and they pointed out that Leahy had stated that the Justice Department under former President Clinton would not pursue criminal contempt citations against White House officials when it occurred back in 1999. The Justice Department has stated that it will not allow the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, to pursue this case in court. Taylor would normally represent Congress in any legal battle with the White House.

"Senate Democrats are showing that they're more interested in headlines than serious legislation, and they should be fully aware of the futility of pressing ahead on this," said Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, in a statement.

"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, that the constitutional prerogatives of the President would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. Attorneys."

Perino added:"Senator Leahy may have summed it best in September 1999 when he said the following:

'The criminal contempt mechanism, see 2 U.S.C. section 192, which punishes as a misdemeanor a refusal to testify or produce documents to Congress, requires a referral to the Justice Department, which is not likely to pursue compliance in the likely event that the President asserts executive privilege in response to the request for certain documents or testimony.'"

SPECTER IS A RINO. WE HAD A CHANCE TO GET HIM OFF THAT COMMITTE 6 YRS AGO AND DIDN'T HAVE THE GUTS. IT'S OUR OWN FAULT. SPECTER IS A DISLOYAL SHILL. JUST A FEW DAYS AGO BUSH PARDONED SAUL KAPLAN, SPECTERS PARTNER IN CRIME AND CHIEF MONEY LAUNDERER.

Congress has more important things to do than this poor attempt to embarrass the president. These judges can be appointed and fired anytime he chooses. This big of a fuss wasn't made when Clinton fired more than Bush. Nothing but partisan politics. The Democrat party has become the Hypocrat party.
It's time to throw all the bums out, starting with Specter, Reid, and Pelosi.

Hey Shane, maybe you aren't aware that executive officials are not exempt from cooperating with court-ordered subpoenas. I'm sure if one of these "executive officials" caused you to lose YOUR job in an illegal manner, you wouldn't be too quick to attack the committee investigating it.

The Democratically controlled Congress is making a collective fool of itself. Investigations, subpoenas, contempt charges, ad nauseum. How about funding the troops and a budget and the normal things the legislative branch should do? I am surprised that 22% of the people give them a favorable rating.

what a bunch of totally brainwashed respondants (so far).
Who if not congress should oversee potential abuses of the executive brance. How can anyone with half a brain allow any brance of government rule without checks and balances which include oversightes.
Get over your republican, conservative biases and start thinking what is in the best interest of a free society with oversights of all the brances of government. God help us if any branch can just do whatever they want.

Reai,Pelosi,Murtha ,all should be found guilty of aiding and abetting our enemy,and wasting tax payors dollars for amazing lack of due dillegence...these lazy bums work as little as their pathetic constituents!!i

The Senate is a joke. They haven't a clue anymore what the American people expect out of them. I don't give a rats butt what Leaky Leahy thinks about the Republicans! Is it any wonder that nothing gets accomplished politically anymore? It is real easy to see why anyone coming out of the Senate can not win the office of the President anymore. They don't know how to do anything but point fingers at others!

Doesn't Congress have anything better to do then go after Rove and Bolten.
Like putting together a budget bill to send to the President so that the Federal Government doesn't shut down.
This is wht Congress' ratings approval are lower then the President.

Only a barnyard idiot takes the Congress seriously at this point. The complete and utter failure this past year is exactly what America has come to expect and it is sad. We need a two term limit for the house and senate!

Maybe they can reach a conpromise: if Bush will agree to explain why he got rid of 8 or 9 U.S. attorneys, Clinton can come in and explain why he got rid of ALL 93 of them at once in March 1993 - something never before done.

Doesn't Congress have anything better to do then go after Rove and Bolten.
Like putting together a budget bill to send to the President so that the Federal Government doesn't shut down.
This is wht Congress' ratings approval are lower then the President.

The people criticizing this legitimate and vital action by the Committee live in their own private Bush universe. What the hill is doing now is reestablishing their coequal status. This is about a substantive issues that three failed GOP congresses failed to address. The President and his staff don't get to run around unfettered. This was demonstrated in the Clinto administration where the GOP Congress spent years investigating irrelevant suicides and oral incidents. So, GOPers, suck it up and taste some of your own medicine. What a bunch of partisan tools you all are. No concern for the health of the government, only your pathetically broken party.

repconsupporter -
can you please tell me what a "brance" is? I know the government is divided into the Executive, Legislative and Judicial BRANCHES, but I need to understand what a brance is.
Is it similar to the brance on a tree?

Another waste of time from this do nothing Congress. The President has executive priviledge to have private conversations, but beyond that even if the firings were politically motivated it would not matter - the President can fire these attorneys for any reason he wants, just as every president before this one has done. Yeah, Congress showing why it is so reviled once again.

A Republican president should play the same brand of hardball the dems do. On entering office fire all presidential appointees and replace with GOP'ers. The folly of this investigation shows why this is necessary'

Specter, you continue to amaze me. I remember your comments about English law during Bubba's "its only about sex" fiasco. This country has serious problems. Is this all you and your Democrat friends have to do?

Shane Anderson,
I'm afraid Mr. Anderson is wholly mistaken in his believe that Congress is COEQUAL with the other, two respective branches. This idea is a modern gloss on the original understanding of the Constitution. Congress is now and, unless the Constitution is amended in some relevant why, has always been the dominant branch of government.
And, finally, oversight of the President and the Vice-President is not coequal with oversight over those who work with or for the President or the Vice-President. Executive privilege is not now nor has it ever been an unlimited privilege, extending to anyone and to everyone with whom the President or the Vice-President confer.

"CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIANISM SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT...DICTATORS AND KINGS WILL NOT RULE HERE...AND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS NOT A ROYAL COMMAND TO HIDE FELONS.."
Come on dude, seriously???

I think Bolten would LOVE a chance to face any of the house members in open court. The Angry Walrus is one petulant, quick on his feet, bright dude. Just cause you hate him doesn't make any of the aforementioned untrue. Bolten will make his accusers look foolish and enjoy doing it.

Since the Attorneys in question serve at the pleasure of the President, who appoints them, he can fire them. For any reason. Just ask Bill Clinton who dumped all the Attorneys when he took office. No reason given. So what is the big deal. And the Congress and Senate wonders why the people hold them in such low esteem. Give us a break and do some people's business. The dems signalled they were going to hold hearins, etc. if they took power, not for honest reasons, but to tie up the Executive. And so are, or at least trying.

Another attempt at looking busy which will ultimately turn into a complete waste of my tax money and Congress' time. The congressional approval rating drops another 3-5 points. Pelosi and Reid ought to be proud of another accomplishment.

To these emotionally twisted Democrats that currently populate the Congress (some are named in this article), they clearly do not even know what they can and cannot do in any official sense as members of Congress. They may just as well have carved into their desks in the Halls, "Karl and Joshua, we hate yew" and a carved, snarly face added to that might have made them feel like they'd done something well.

I don't care what your party affiliation is;
no government should inspire the kind of hatred that is clearly existent today
that means no more bush's, cheney's, rove's.. the same could be said for someone like giuliani that epitomizes anger or clinton (hillary) that inspires hatred; no more bashing the parties; just get over yourselves. it is so counterproductive it's not even funny at this point.

Congress represents the people of the US, if bush and rove, bolten and miers planned to change US attorneys for criminal reasons we want to know. It is a crime for the President or his aids to interfere with the LEGITIMATE workings of the DOJ. It appears the US attorneys were fired because they refused to bring frivolous lawsuits against democrats in order to influence the outcomes of local elections. In other words, they wanted US attorneys who would indict democrats, having no evidence against the democrats, during the election cycle to influence the outcome of the election. Many of the US attorneys fired were republican men and women of integrity and would not indict people for that reason and this appears to be the reason why they were replaced. We do not live in Stalinist Russia, bush and his cohorts have no right to use the legal system to influence elections and to ruin people for thier own political gain.

If Bush fired these attorneys because they were Dems, that is legal. If he fired them because their eyes were blue, that is legal. Congressional oversight does not apply in this case. And those of you who think this is similar to what the Repubs did, think again. The Repubs investigated allegations of illegal acts; not oral sex, but perjury; not bad investments, but bank fraud.

Keving67 - while it is very cute you are able to quote Churchill, he was speaking about a conservatism different than what the Fundamentalist Christian Republican Party now represents. Pithy but not relevant buddy.

Bush bashers: If previous pres. have done this same thing, where were you then? This is a normal process....you hate Bush so bad that you are irrational. Also, as you can see on this post, there are more of us than there are of you...how else did "anyone but Bush!" win in 2004? Yeah, he stole it...morons.

Some of these people are amazing! Clinton wipes out the entire prosecutorial unit, and nobody speaks up. Bush kicks out nine, and you would think he was thowing kids out orphanage windows! He has the authority -- they all serve at the pleasure of the President. Get a life, Congress, and get back to wasting OUR money on things that might ACTUALLY MATTER to us.

Bush bashers: If previous pres. have done this same thing, where were you then? This is a normal process....you hate Bush so bad that you are irrational. Also, as you can see on this post, there are more of us than there are of you...how else did "anyone but Bush!" win in 2004? Yeah, he stole it...morons.

Where were you jackasses during Whitewater, Travelgate and that Lewinsky thing. If you truly mean "The Congress has NO oversight authority over the Whitehouse" as Eric thinks, your credibility is now in question.

Anne | December 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM
This lady has definitely drunk the Koolaide. Bush's AG has had many opportunities to pursue Dem wrongdoers, but chose the high road for the sake of the country. What did the Dems do in return, stab him in the back every chance they got. Bush was naive going to Washington thinking he could appeal to the "what's best for America" side of the Dems.

Allyn, the attorneys fired were republicans. Every president replaces all US attorneys when he first comes to office. ALL recent presidents have done this. W replaced all of Clinton appointees at the DOJ. Gonzales fired republican attorneys who would not indict democrats in key state without cause in order to influence the outcome of local elections. All of the evidence points in that direction. This kind of practice is a blow against democracy. This is the kind of thing done by brutal dictators in order to maintain control of their governments. And I repeat: ALL OF THE US ATTORNEYS THAT WERE FIRED WERE REPUBLICANS, they were HONEST republicans and that's why they were fired.

Hey D-unit - a subpoena from a committee of Congress is not a court ordered anything. Whether something is executive privilege or not, does comes from the court and that idiotic democratic fight has not yet taken place. Did all U.S. attorneys fired by Clinton deserve it. The answer is no. I venture to guess that the ones fired by the Bush administration did deserve it. I know one that sure did.

If you support bush co. you then support, torture, no presidential emails, outing cia agents, fiscal irresponsibility, bigger gov't, less security, no habeus corpus, on and on. When will you stop being loyal bushies and start being loyal americans?
Where isd that video of a plane hitting the pentagon? Oh yea there is none. You have never seen one still you protect those who know and have seen the footage. Who are you loyal bushies going to believe, what this gov't tells you or your own eyes? This may be impossible for some to internalize. That is the reason for this mess.

The commitee its self needs to be held as contemptable. For Spector and Grassely to go along with the Dims is contemptable. Spector, leahy, grassely, kennedy are all examples of why there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment on term limits!

My point exactly Marcus. I think members of congress should at the very least be required to pass a civics class before bringing up this complete waste of time. The President can fire these attorneys for any reason he wants and has executive priviledge to get advice from people who should be allowed to give advice without having to worry about some congressional committee overreaching its powers to create a circus over a moot point.
And hug the moon you may have one of the worst cases of BDS I have ever heard! I can only hope you are in grade school with naive comments like those.

Anne | December 13, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Anne you make a great point. Republicans, NOT loyal bushies, should be rallying behind the fired attourneys. Thiose are truly the honest republicans who will guide that party out of the fascist mess it has become.
Hear that repubs? support honest repub and not that high spending, many peo-ple killing, 5x the price for gas, food and healthcare that has been a result of Bush and his co conspirators. Save your party, stop protecting this Bush.

Hey "hug the moon", so if Bush is for outing CIA agents, whats with wanting to see these tapes that were distroyed? How many agents will be outed when there faces are seen be many when the Clinton News Network (CNN) airs them?

If this Dem congress put as much effort into ending terrorism as they do trying to damge the Bush Administration, they boys would have been home by now!
Posted By: Bill | December 13, 2007 at 11:44 AM
The ghost of Rod Serling narrates:
"These boys are never going to come home"

Hey "hug the moon", so if Bush is for outing CIA agents, whats with wanting to see these tapes that were distroyed? How many agents will be outed when there faces are seen be many when the Clinton News Network (CNN) airs them?
Posted By: Bill | December 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Thanks for the civil discussion bill, It is my understanding that when some goes under the torture of waterboarding, those administering the torture will be wearing hoods. Show me a video of an "interagator" who is waterboarding without wearing a hood. If not, they would digitize the face like they do on cops.
I disagree about CNN being a clinton channel. CNN like the MSM has given the bush fascist movement license to operate. They are a fox in sheeps clothing.
A real news team would not play kiss ass the way cnn nbc abc cbs has.
I invite you to join in the questioning of your leader5 bush, it is also good to question clinton and anyone else who convinces you that you are afraid and to spend your taxes on their renditions, torture, fear mongering.
I invite you to resist fear from any quarter.
Take care my friend.

To sum this up: Due to a failure of Hairy Reid to be a successful majority leader, it takes a "nothing" situation like this to give the image to the American people that something positive is being accomplished.

Congress has no authority in the US Constitution to compel anything from the Executive branch. There is no Constitutional limitation on firing any appointee for whatever reason the appointor wishes.
I wish there was some. I think the President should be "investigating" Congress for not getting a budget to him in time for him to sign (or veto) by the time it was suppose to go into effect (October 1st).
I am waiting to see what backlash there will be when people that have a refund coming don't get until March (or April) because the Congress has not provided these budgets. Is the IRS going to pay interest for the late refunds???

Almost time to move up yer Who's Hitler calendars, Earthmuffins. From Nixon, Reagan & Bush to Guiliani.
Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007 at 11:55 AM
No just Bush. Dont dillute the serioussness of the charge. More innocent civilians have died as a result of bush than any other person presently in power on the planet. Who has killed more than Bush at present. He holds the worlds record for most deaths for any office holder on earth. Pretty sick. Go ahead support him. It is realized that you are afraid that some scary muslim might pull a mcveigh on you.

What a complete farce.As usual this Republican administration is being held to a different set of rules than the previous Democrat administration! I'm so sick and tired of Washington spending countless billions of taxpayer money and getting absolutely nothing constructive accomplished. No wonder Congress approval ratings are so low

It allows the Dems to go back to their districts with something to point to show how tough they are. Like the guy who flips you off while running away after getting his a$$ kicked. A meaningless gesture taken in full context.

Bruce
A very mooking, avoid the issue, distract, reframe, reply, or make the person defend, define a specific term response. Typical of one that knows deep down in their heart they are wrong and have do not a real honest response because of that heart felt knowledge.
Cute - but wipe the smerk off your face - unless your truly stupid, you are well aware of the message. Regardless of your political leaning, you know very well that oversight of governmental, lets say units or their representative(s) actions is necessary to maintain a free society.

Hug the moon(bat) - It sounds like you will be blaming Bush into the next century. Creditable commentary from a 911 truther and your Pentagon plane theory. There is medication for BDS. Go find some.
Posted By: G-Man | December 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM
OK then my friend gman, please link a video of a plane hitting the pentagon. If you were the president would you ask to see such footage? Go ahead and call me names like moonbat or BDS or whatever makes me appear smaller so you feel bigger. You still have not seen any video from a place that is draped in cameras. Who is deranged? Why do you protect what you can not see? If you have no link to provide of a clear plane attack on the pentagon, than I am sure you will want to join in asking to see such footage. Or we can take the word (or lack there of) of your beloved leader Bush.

This is proof that there should be term limits for Congress. Specter and Grassley have been there too long, along with many others. The voters should start 2009 with a new president, and new senators and reps.

Isen't it about time that the Senate accomplish something that isn't trivial? We have paid a lot of money for them and staff to look under beds and desks for something to use against a Republican somewhere, anywhere. They need to see that without a clear possibility for success chasing windmills only wastes money and time from what they are there to do! What a waste of space and funds!!!

From the folks who proposed Barak Hussein Obama as Prez during the Islamic Jihad.
Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007 at 12:08
Rufus, You reply can be filed under the racism portion of this definition. Does this bring you honor or even a sense of security? Racism sucks. So does parisanship.
Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Enough of wasting tax payer money, time and energy on this fruitless nonsense. Whether or not these idiots are aware of it this country is at war and being attacked, it has health insurance, economic, Iranian, immigration, education and multiple other FAR more important issues to be spending their time on. What a bunch of absolute fools. If anything is a scandal it's their wasting of precious time chasing their tales like this.

Discover the facts about this issue by reading an article by a 35-year veteran of the Justice Department:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Do you recall Travelgate, an issue that arose over the firing of White House travel office employees, who have no influence at all over public policy? Don't they also "serve at the pleasure of the president"? Why was so much discussion raised over that, but the firing of US attorneys is thought trivial by right-wing apologists?

Or you can put me and my kind intro concentration camps. That should keep us quiewt while you believe the official story. Do you also believe that Brownie did a heck of a job? Yea, move along wacko, nothing more to see here. Well that is not good enough. I take your insutls with a salt block because I know you too have not seen a video of an attack on the pentagon that was clear. Too bad if you are upset that I don't take the gov't's word for it. Do you?

Hey D-Unit maybe you don't know the difference between a court and the congress. It isn't a court ordered subpoena and one from a congressional committe. Maybe the Congress and the senate should recognize the seperation of powers and quit trying to be the judicial branch. But then, its okay when the democrat party does it right?

I'm a Democrat and I wish my party would get off of this prosecutor firing issue. EVERY President does it and they serve at the discretion of the President. I'm afraid this is going to come back and bite us.

To the partisans on both sides: for all your hypocritical accusations, you're both wrong. Bolton and Rove SHOULD be tried for contempt AND congress sucks. But you all keep defending your party and attacking the other. Try defending the COUNTRY for a change and think independently...if that's possible. .

Hey moonbat. Is Islam a race now?
So is it racist to fight our declared enemies and their sympathizers? Don't answer that.
So racist for besmirching your deluded Prez choice of Barak Hussein Obama who feels we should dialogue with our hat in our hands with the Death to America suicidal nutcakes.
Is it also sexist to deride Pelosi for putting on a veil to side with these savages agaisnt Bush?
Again, no answer is needed.

Sadly, "hug the moon" is typical of many Dem voters: ignorant, naive, irrational, OCD, etc. I suppose "hug the moon" thinks the plane with Barbara Olson and the other passengers either never existed, crashed in the ocean, or is trailing some distant comet.

This is disgusting. Executive privilige exists so the President can receive advice and points of view with out the fear of the president's advisers being required to disclose their conversations. The Senators who voted for this contempt resolution don't deserve to be Senators and should and do know better. If this was a Democrat proesdent and Republicans voting for a contempt resolution, I'd feel the same way.

Williamsopinions writes that Congress should be investigated for not completing their budget work on time. It should be noted that the fiscal 2007 budget (from 10/06 through 9/07) did not get done until February 2007, because the Republican-controlled Congress in 2006 did not bother working on it.
Democrats are still far ahead of that date for the fiscal 2008 budget, with another two months to go before they even match the dismal Republican record, which had an advantage in that they did not have to deal with a White House of another party.

Dear Hug The Moon (Bat) and like minded non-thinkers. The feckless Congress is wasting our tax money. They speak from the heart and not their brain. It makes you bush-haters feel good but it won't accomplish a fracking thing!

Dear Hug The Moon (Bat) and like minded non-thinkers. The feckless Congress is wasting our tax money. They speak from the heart and not their brain. It makes you bush-haters feel good but it won't accomplish a fracking thing!

Bush needed no reason to fire those attorneys. Period.
The democrat witch hunt continues. No wonder the traitorous Leahy, the national security leaker, and his band of stalinist comrades in the senate are at 11% approval.
...
Clearly when it comes to the Democrat controlled Congress...we have met the enemy...and it is them.

Hey moonbat. Is Islam a race now? So is it racist to fight our declared enemies and their sympathizers? Don't answer that. So racist for besmirching your deluded Prez choice of Barak Hussein Obama who feels we should dialogue with our hat in our hands with the Death to America suicidal nutcakes. Is it also sexist to deride Pelosi for putting on a veil to side with these savages agaisnt Bush? Again, no answer is needed.
Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Want to ask questions but do not really want any answers? Is that your plan of self education? Why not just comment as opposed to ask? Yes being biased against people because of their religion is considered racist. What else would you call it? Please do answer I am intellectually curious and would love to know.
Also I never said Barack was my choice. He seems like he is playing into all the phony bologny stuff like everyone else minus Ron Paul and Kucinich. If you strike pelosi down because she is a woman than yes that is sexist. If you strike her down because she is not representing the people by impeaching the war criminal bush that would not be sexist, that would be honest.
With respect and kindness to you my friend rufus.

Dear Hug The Moon (Bat)
Posted By: Hawkeye80 | December 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Does the name calling make me smaller and you bigger? C'mon lets have a discussion, not a name calling thing like little kids do. I am open to hearing you, the names are a turn off. Please be considerate.
Your friend and mine,
HTM

No wonder the traitorous Leahy, the national security leaker,
Posted By: KJS | December 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Really, I did not know it was Leahy who leaked against Covert CIA agent Valeri Plkame who was fighting against Iran nukes as a US spy. I was under the impression that it was cheney's office ultimately responsible. Can you link me to the leahy story please? I would love to learn more. Let's have a link shall we?

The DemoCrack Party is a lint-trap for the dysfunctional.
Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Intersting post though you only call names. Why do you feel this way. Put down the facts. Are you just venting or do you want to inform and pursuade? C'mon rufus you have a lot of passion and energy, put that into delivering facts. People love facts when they read these comments. How do you respond to others when they only list name calling and no real information?
With respect and kindness.

You mean the war "crimes" of taking down the Taliban, Saddam regime and scaring Khadaffi into surrendering all his WMDs?
How awful. And now that even Murtha admits we are winning in Iraq, your war crime nursery rhyme will get you about as far as it got George McGovern.

The idea that Congress has no right to call White House advisors to testify strikes me as odd. Doesn't anyone here remember the Watergate hearings: Ervin, Baker, etc.? Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, all former White House advisors, and all testified.
I shudder to think of what might happen if today's brand of Republican held sway during the Watergate years. Would the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, during the "Saturday Night Massacre" also be defended on grounds that the president can fire anyone he wants?

Moonbat..everyone knows it was Armitage who leaked non-covert Plame name to Novak. Joe Wilson lied in front of the 9/11 commission...and Leahy was forced to resign from his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1987 for leaking secrets, purportedly resulting in the death of one person.

You mean the war "crimes" of taking down the Taliban, Saddam regime and scaring Khadaffi into surrendering all his WMDs? How awful. And now that even Murtha admits we are winning in Iraq, your war crime nursery rhyme will get you about as far as it got George McGovern.
Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM
The Taliban are said to be in power of the country of afghan outside the citadel green zones of Kabul and Kandahar. Don't get me wrong now, I wish the taliban were wiped out. Our iraq occupation had dilluted our ability to contain the taliban over a long period. Which we knew we were getting into by how the taliban resisted the soviets over time. The violence in iraq is down becaust most of the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. No one left to kill. If we are winning in Iraq, why do they have no government yet? Or better asked, why has the iragi "govt" been unable to pass any kind of real laws yet or come to agree on any oil profit sharing, etc. Is that victory? Why are we still there? Is that winning? Are we still winning in Korea? Are you glad all these us soldiers died because saddam had no wmd's? I think the Khaddaffi handing over his wmd's and programs was a beautiful thing. It was huge. Thank god for that. All nations should follow suit. High five to whatever made khaddaffi change his mind. Even if it was George Bush and friends, then a big high five to them for that and that alone. This may spoil your BDS potrayal of people who see bush as a criminal. To be specific his crimes are lying us into war, lying to us about domestic spying, domestic spying, torture (yes water boarding is torture) not giving due process to those who are being held, Millions of missing emails, using the rnc email system, lying about the abrahmoff contact, outing plame, covering up plame.

The current leadership of the democrat party is among the worst in American history. Why do they keep wasting the country's time with this garbage? I am so disappointed with senators Specter and Grassley. Shame!

>>The idea that Congress has no right to call White House advisors to testify strikes me as odd<<
The idea, supported by ample evidence, that Nixon had obstructed justice and illegally bugged enemies were impeachable crimes, not political discretionary powers that every president has always defended.
To use Congress to harrass and disrupt the Executive from functioning, without such an issue before it, is clearly an abuse of power.

If this was a Republican congress investigating Bill Clinton, all of the right wing neo-cons commenting here would be screeching that if those that were subpoenaed did not have anything to hide then why not just testify. Refusing to testify only implies that they are attempting a typical Republican cover up. Innocent people that have nothing to conceal, have nothing to fear while telling the truth. Something this lying administration and its supporters could not possibly grasp.

KJS writes of a "non-covert Plame name". This is grossly false.
President Bush's own hand-picked man for Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, has said that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA employee.
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent

Hug the moon, you are obviously spending much too much time reading the extreme left web sites. Your rhetoric is like a broken record. I'm sure the president is responsible for high gas prices, world terrorism, aids, and the heartbreak of psoriasis! Wake up and pay attention to real news sources and maybe hatred will cease to rule your life.

Hey IDIOTS!,i.e. those of you that think patty leahy et.al. have the "authority" to launch an "investigation", or subpoena another co-equal branch of the government; what do you think would happen if the President and Vice President, i.e. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, launched an investigation on patty leahy and "his" Judicial Committee!! Wouldn't that be a hoot!!

Hey IDIOTS!,i.e. those of you that think patty leahy et.al. have the "authority" to launch an "investigation", or subpoena another co-equal branch of the government; what do you think would happen if the President and Vice President, i.e. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, launched an investigation on patty leahy and "his" Judicial Committee!! Wouldn't that be a hoot!!

Clinton was impeached by Congress. His acquittal was not, at the time, a sure thing. Perjury is a crime. So is buying off witnesses with government jobs as he can be seen to have done with Monica being put into the Pentagon.
There is no crime in appointing attorney general administrative officials to serve at a President's pleasure. And there has been no evidence alleged of other criminal violations in any facts or motives suggested here other than putting the people in office who agree with your political agenda. A lawful perogative of any President.

Does anyone remember president Jackson and the trail of tears? Congress ordered him to stop removing cherokee indians from their land, and his response was to keep doing it because congress lacked the ability of enforcement; he is now considered a hero and on our twenty dolalr bill (he actually hated the federal banking system; ironic). Not to say Bush is a hero, but history will wash away the bias of the situation and call it like it is, a legal dismissal of his employees and nothing more. Congress has real work to do.

gas prices, world terrorism, aids, and the heartbreak of psoriasis! Wake up and pay attention to real news sources and maybe hatred will cease to rule your life.
Posted By: JC | December 13, 2007 at 01:18 PM
I never mentioned psoriasis or aids. I did mention food gas and healthcare. Please do not slippery slope me with psoriasis non sense.
Please refer some news sources that you seem to think highly of. I would like to check them out. Please post ASAP.
Thank you!

never said bush started world terrorism, I am saying he adds to it, he does not combat terror, he creates more terror. Intentionally or not. I would hope not intentional. Want to discuss if Iraq has created or destroyed more terrorists?
Let me ask you, what critical (even constructive criticism) do you have for Bush Co.? Are you able? Maybe you can argue that they are not agressive enough?

"Refusing to testify only implies that they are attempting a typical Republican cover up. Innocent people that have nothing to conceal, have nothing to fear while telling the truth."
REALLY?
Let's take a walk down memory lane:
Rose law firm records
Monica
Gennifer
Whitewater
Ron Brown
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Travel Gate
96 fired U.S. Attorneys
Need I go on?
This is a Witch hunt with a capital "W" - or, since I'm sure Hilary is behind it, maybe that should be a capital "B"!

Do you want a US Department of Justice that makes decisions about prosecutions based on the party leanings of those charged versus the party in charge of the White House?
That is what we will wind up with if this is not fully investigated. There is good reason to think that is what happened in the Bush DOJ. Read Comey's testimony for more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701299.html

For the love of God... could capital hill PLEASE FOCUS on improving Americans lives ASAP (although my life is just fantastic at this time but I need more of my money) and focus on what really matters like ---- Personalizing my social security account NOW!!!!!!!!!!, 0% federal tax on my income NOW!!!!!!!!, eliminate personal and business hurdles so that we can have a FREE MARKET within America and ABROAD... and also for the love of God... could we please please please DRILL FOR OIL off all of our coasts & land areas in the USA... before the Chi-Coms beat us to it...PLEASE FOCUS for us.. we did elect you... From the Great State of Texas,, Rhonda T.

you found one of the errors. but there are still several out there. do you need to hire me as a copy editor? i'm serious. let me know at hr_pennypacker@yahoo.com and i will send you my resume along with all the corrections that you should have made prior to this article being posted.

It is becoming obvious the combined IQ's for the Senate Judicial Department approaches the sum of its members. ----------- What is wrong with these people? Instead of being constructive they are petty, incompetent and making fools of themselves. ------------------ NO wonder 90% of the voters thing Congress SUCKS!

Rove and Bolton are loyal conservative Americans who liberals can't stand. The democratic controled congress has been trying desperately to find anything they can against anyone associated with Bush. Even Arlen Spector, a Republican who fears these liberals in the senate so joins them, are on a witch hunt after these guys. Everyone, including democrats, know that its all political.
Congress should try to do something useful for a change. This democratic controlled congress may be the worst congress this country has ever had!

Is it also sexist to deride Pelosi for putting on a veil to side with these savages agaisnt Bush? Again, no answer is needed. Posted By: RufusLeeKing | December 13, 2007
Too bad, here is my answer? Are you putting Laura Bush in the same category as Pelosi? If not, why?
Be brave, answer me.
Here is an article comparing a scarved Laura Bush to Pelosi. I found it on Google Images.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/pelosi-laura-bush-scarf/

Republicans wasted law enforcement resources investigating Bill Clinton's legal/heterosexual personal life. While Republicans were playing political games, terrorists were plotting 9/11.
Accountability!
Now, the majority of the American people are learning unqualified "Bushies" have been placed in positions of grave responsibility.
This partisan manipulation of the Public service system is paving the way for another 9/11 attack.
Karl Rove's email commands were found on Jack Abramoff's computer & the Bushie Justice Dept. covered it up.
Karl hid his secret RNCC email from the Fitizgerald investigation.
It is time to get to the bottom of this mess, before the "Loyal Bushies" permit another 9/11.

This democratic controlled congress may be the worst congress this country has ever had!
Posted By: Vince Hugh | December 13, 2007 at 01:47 PM
You are correct Vince. It is the lawful duty of this congress to get rid of the criminal elements within politics. They are ignoring their lawful obligation. There is something deeply wrong with this congress and the one before this congress.

Have a question for you Democrats.
Tell me why Clinton dismissed over 80 US Attorneys without a single contempt resolution issued from the Senate Judiciary.
Explain that, and then maybe we can have an un-biased conversation.

I can not believe there are people that actually believe that our president did the 9/11 attack , would any one know how many would have to be invol;ved and how many would have to keep a secret, ? you find me ten people that can keep a secret of this magnitude , there would literaly had to of been a thousnad involved for this to happen , and there is no way that many would keep this under wraps . post something with some common sense to it and people will listen, no one is listening to the ones who believe this garbage .

being biased against people because of their religion is considered racist
what? a religion is not a race, and this is from the same poster who is suggesting the plane that I saw hit the pentagon did not really hit the pentagon.

I can not believe there are people that actually believe that our president did the 9/11 attack , would any one know how many would have to be invol;ved and how many would have to keep a secret, ? you find me ten people that can keep a secret of this magnitude , there would literaly had to of been a thousnad involved for this to happen , and there is no way that many would keep this under wraps . post something with some common sense to it and people will listen, no one is listening to the ones who believe this garbage .
Posted By: Kenneth J Roberts | December 13, 2007 at 01:56 PM
I am not saying bush did it or knew or whatever you are accusing. I said i do not believe the official srory. FYI it has been figured out that as little as 10-15 people could of pulled off 9/11 with others being unwitting.Historical reference is the Manhattan project. Over 100,000 people working to nuke 2 japanese cities and only a hundred people or so knew what the project really was. Bush did not have to know. Though If i were the president I would ask to see the footage a a plane hitting the pentagon. I am no expert in contriolled demolition, or melting steel, or missing bodies, etc, though I have seen video my whole life and so far there has been no clear footage. Have you seen any clear footage? If you were president would you want to? Think about it. Do you believe the official story? Obviously someone did it, but who?
We are living in an undefined coup. Loss of civil rights, plunder of the treasury and more war are the hallmarks that immediately followed every coup across the face of history. Just like us now.

Sad Republicans care more about party loyalty than the country. Understand whatever crimes Bush gets away with can be done by the next President. What if...horrors...Hillary wins? She'll get to spy on Americans, she'll get to hide documents with executive privilege, she'll get to commute the sentence of convicted cronies, she'll get to detain anybody she wants without trial so long as they're dubiously labeled the enemy, she'll get to torture while denying that we torture, all of the power grabs Cheney has done for Bush goes to the next president...and what if that president is a democrat? Will we still get the "we're at war let the president do anything he wants" attitude if a Republican isn't in charge? That's the sad pathetic thing about people who put party loyalty above their country. All the people complaining about oversight now probably didn't say a peep during the republicans oversight of Clinton which did amount to trivial things like haircuts and have been triple the investigations of Bush so far. We're leaning toward a dictatorship here. Fascism. In the name of American, we are torturing prisoners, we're breaking international laws, we're kidnapping people from other countries, we're spying on citizens, we're detaining people without charges or trials. We're making more enemies than allies. That's probably not a good thing in the long run. About the DOJ. I like how morons keep repeating the inaccuracies they hear on FOX. Every president has replaced the attorneys at the beginning of their term. George did his first term. That's not the problem. The problem is turning the DOJ into a republican institution, which is illustrated by the FACT that the one thing all of these fired have in common is that they refused to press charges against democrats with insufficient evidence right before an election or were wouldn't drop an investigation into republicans. That's not a way to govern in a society where justice is for all. If that doesn't bother you then it shouldn't bother you if the next president is democrat and instructs that only republicans be charged with crimes from now on. It's sad when I read the comments of so many foolish foolish people who don't see the big picture and how much of a disservice Bush and his cabal have done to this country.

being biased against people because of their religion is considered racist what? a religion is not a race, and this is from the same poster who is suggesting the plane that I saw hit the pentagon did not really hit the pentagon.
Posted By: dc | December 13, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Discredit me all you want. In the process you must qualify yourself, where did you see the plane hit, please link. Are you an eyewwitness or just someone who was fed a few vague planeless frames that the pentagon coughed up after they were sued? Or maybe you are considering the planeless surveilence footage from the hotel? Please link to your source, if you don't you are a troll nothing more.

[Who cares what it's a "dramatic break" from? The Congress has NO oversight authority over the White House; only over the executive agencies which they have the authority to create and regulate.]
It's Politico. You know that "journalists" never let facts get into the way of a good "media template". It's Drive By Media Code of Misconduct.

Have a question for you Democrats. Tell me why Clinton dismissed over 80 US Attorneys without a single contempt resolution issued from the Senate Judiciary. Explain that, and then maybe we can have an un-biased conversation.
Because he could. Just like every other president. No one ever has a problem with that practice at the beginning of a term or a new term. Do a little reading and less FOX News parroting. Also, Bush claims he didn't fire anybody. Apparently this list came out of nowhere. If someone had just admitted to choosing these 9 nine and why they chose these 9 this would have been over in January. But we have everyone denying it and then lying about the reasons (bad performance) that sets off a Watergate radar. When you narrow down what the nine had in common it boils to they wouldn't dish out justice based on party affiliation. The firing isn't the crime, it's the cover up and lying about it...which is what the Bush admin is known for.

Not even Cheney is evil enough to have had a part in 9/11 and clearly Bush is too stupid and I wish these folks would stop...it lessens the credible of the real crimes. Bush/Cheney took advantage of 9/11 for a power grab and to attack Iraq. Thanks to our lazy "liberal" media many people still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had weapons. If we get a democrat president all the documents that Bush has been trying to so hard to keep under wraps will become public...showing to even the most loyal and most foolish that he cherry picked the intelligence that has gotten us into a false war. Al Queda is bigger now than when they attacked. Thank Bush. Feel safer? Seriously?

hug, why are you arguing about a plane hitting the pentagon? do you know how foolish, regardless of all your other posts, that makes you look? yeah I was on 395 and the hundreds of other people around me saw the same thing. don't try and argue undisputable facts. you truly are deranged.

David Watson,
I really like what your posts, full of facts and clear information. Someone was evil enough to pull off 9/11. The question is not about cheney or bush. It is about not believing the official story which makes it about finding out the actual story if the given is a fake. Yes Cheney and Bush did a huge grab after 9/11, commited as you say "real crimes" However these real crimes are drips from a leaky bucket that of which is 9/11. We can either mop up after the leaky drip or we can fix the bucket. Any insight on this? I respect your opinion based on your earlier input.

Hug the moon(bat) - Sorry did not get back to you sooner, had to put some time into my day job. If a plane did not hit the Pentagon, then where might that plane be now with all those fine people that are missing. Don't tell me, I know, Bush has them locked up in the basement of the White House and the plane is hidden under a como tarp at Gitmo. Search youtube.com for "plane hits Pentagon" and you will see the video. For your BDS to even think that 911 was an inside job by the Bush administration defies description. Its ok to think and say what you like, just realize that when we challenge your sanity, we are saying and thinking what we like. America is great isn't it.

hug, why are you arguing about a plane hitting the pentagon? do you know how foolish, regardless of all your other posts, that makes you look? yeah I was on 395 and the hundreds of other people around me saw the same thing. don't try and argue undisputable facts. you truly are deranged.
Posted By: dc | December 13, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Why has no one you tubed their eyewitness accounts? WOuld you go under oath with your actual name and testify to what you saw? You could be a very important person? Where exactly on the 395 were you when the pentagon was hit? Did you see an AA logo? What was trasffic like? How fast were you going? In what direction? Were you alone in your car, or carpooling? Did everyone slam on their brakes or greatly slow down? What did you do when you got to your destination? Who did you tell what you saw? Would they be willing to back your story up? I would love to believe you. Nothing would make me happier.
With respect and eagerness.
Thanks a million!

Those of you that are supporting this action by the committee are forgetting that many Presidents have done the same thing without any questioning. Clinton fired several, and nobody said a word.
If the intentions were pure here, you may have an argument, but let's not be so naive.

David Watson says; " Because he could. Just like every other president. " Posted By: David Watson | December 13, 2007 at 02:12 PM.
Well,, I think you just proved my point. The President does not have to answer to anybody when dismissing US Attorneys that are appointed by , duh , the President. You made the case for me. It don't make a carpenters-dayyum why President Bush dismissed them it was his prerogative. You say I get my talking points from FOX, but judging from your comment I reckon you have a DNC Fax Machine in your room ?

Search youtube.com for "plane hits Pentagon" and you will see the video.- gman
I did and there are no clear images. Only vague frames with nothing clear. There are too many cameras on that building in this age of information for their too be so little (nothing clear) on youtube. It is a disgrace. Please send the link of what you are seeing. I would love to see it. Not just search you tube. Paste the link.

Hugs, sorry, I have no real thoughts on the pentagon thing. I'm sure there is much that is being hidden and a lot that is false, but until something really jumps out at me I tend to mostly believe the official story. That might change later if something is discovered...but like Area-51, if it was an inside job it's just too big of a secret to keep, in my opinion. Someone with documents would have squealed by now...as we've found with people coming forth with the documents that show Bush cherry picked his Iraq info. But I'm open to new ideas, but I need to see something big and there's no harm in there still being some investigation.

Had the AG originally answered that attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, as many pointed out when this inquiry started; left the podium and went home, he'd still be the AG, life would have gone on and we'd be in the same place we are now with this big mess.
I'll bet they were taking steroids, too. Just kidding, you can tell I'm not watching the Dems debate.

David Watson says; " Because he could. Just like every other president. " Posted By: David Watson | December 13, 2007 at 02:12 PM. Well,, I think you just proved my point. The President does not have to answer to anybody when dismissing US Attorneys that are appointed by , duh , the President. You made the case for me. It don't make a carpenters-dayyum why President Bush dismissed them it was his prerogative. You say I get my talking points from FOX, but judging from your comment I reckon you have a DNC Fax Machine in your room ?

Ha ha. Nice of you to chop what I said to somehow make your case. Cherry picking, just like Bush. Again, no one has a problem with presidents dumping folks at the beginning of a term. Red flags rise when it's a few people with excellent records out of the blue. And Bush said he didn't choose the 9...which is why his executive privileged is being challenged. Cherry picker. Ha ha.

Hey Moonbat! Do you live on this site? Do you have nothing more important to do in life other than spend every hour trying to one-up every other person in America who comments about this article? Seriously, you might want to consider getting a life. Hating Bush is generally not considered 'a job' and certainly won't pay your mortgage. (Sorry, you probably own anything for fear of being becoming rich).
Why don't you just save all of the bad grammar, typos and incoherent comments and just call Bush a Nazi or a terrorist? It is what you believe and it would save everybody else a lot of time if you could just sum up all of your nonsense into three words or less.

Hug: research what the moniker G-Man stands for and you will have your answer. But let me help you out, yes we believe the findings of the non-partisan "911 Commission."
Posted By: | December 13, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Good for you. Now link a vid of a plane hitting the pentagon so that others may believe too. I will believe my eyes. Not the words of a non independant commission.
Sincerley i appreciate your response and your right to believe whatever you want or need to.

So our prez-king thinks he can stop all inquiry into vote fraud and all other sins simply by claiming executive privilege? I know you righties will be able to see it the other way when Hillary is prez-queen.

Hey Moonbat! Do you live on this site? Do you have nothing more important to do in life other than spend every hour trying to one-up every other person in America who comments about this article? Seriously, you might want to consider getting a life. Hating Bush is generally not considered 'a job' and certainly won't pay your mortgage. (Sorry, you probably own anything for fear of being becoming rich). Why don't you just save all of the bad grammar, typos and incoherent comments and just call Bush a Nazi or a terrorist? It is what you believe and it would save everybody else a lot of time if you could just sum up all of your nonsense into three words or less.
Posted By: bpjam | December 13, 2007 at 02:46 PM
OOh so powerful. Glad to see this bush thing is working for you. I do not hate bush. Do you hate a child for responding to their framework? No. Bush is a regular person responding to his framework. Do I hate the framework? No. I love the constitution. I love the office of the executive. And I love you dear one. No matter the names or attempts to discredit. Yes, I love you! Happy for you that this bush thing is working out quite nice for you. Still I love the others and it is not going as well for them.
Maybe some of my words awaken you. People are grumpy when they first rise.

Just how long are these loser Democrats going to beat this dead horse? The American people need to vote out every one of them.

Probably as long as the republicans try to hide and cover up. Release the documents, let those requested speak and it's over. They call it a perjury trap...you know the best way to beat a perjury trap? Don't perjure (wait, is that a word?). I don't know why people (of any party) support liars. Fredo would still be in office he hadn't lied and discovered he had memory loss. People that lie are covering up something bad. Why would you allow them? If Clinton had come clean about Monica in the first place he probably would have gotten a censure. Instead he dragged it out and it ended up where it ended up. Our country deserves better than liars. Bush is caught in lie after lie (who could have predicted Katrina? oh, there's Bush on tape a week before Katrina being briefed)...yet republicans and the media give him a pass each time. Trying to trick the public into fighting Iran is only the latest...and he still has supporters. It defies logic.

We holds these ass wipes I contempt. Look at what is on the committee; most miss fits of the congress. It?s about time to kick these nit whit committee members and their stupid ides and accusations to the curb

who could have predicted Katrina?
the weathermen did, so why did all those people in New Orleans who were not smart enough to leave try and pass off their own negligence to some kind of trumped up charge that the federal government was somehow to blame? Katrina was the biggest media debacle in the history of this country and I still laugh at people who try to hold the President responsible for a cat 5 hurricane and the logistics of its aftermath.

never ending nonesense. when do they become legislators and fund the troops? nothing happens till sometime next year and they will table it. we expect it of the left wing but spectre and grasley? we won't forget.

The people were told to expect heavy rain and flooding, the president was told the leevees most likely would not hold. Typical republican attitude, blame the victims. Not everyone can pick up and go. Where should the poor have gone, your house?

I'm looking for a Liberal who will be honest enough to give me a straight answer to this question: Exactly what Law was broken by the firing of the 9 U.S attorneys?
Posted By: Rufus | December 13, 2007 at 03:23 PM
Good point Rufus. Then why would rove and bolten be so reluctant to go under oath?

No law was broken in the firings. So it's troublesome at the lengths Bush is going to cover up the details. That's the problem.

========

About oversight vs witchhunts...the republicans were masters of witchhunts. Oversight is what keeps us from being a dictatorship. Sadly, republicans only believe in oversight when a democrat is in charge. It's a sorry way to govern, which is why republicans are losing ground. Here's something old from Fox (of all places).

But in a world of just desserts, Democrats may be feeling vindicated following 12 years of Republican rule in Congress. To compare, during the Clinton administration Republicans probed, among other issues, whether the White House inappropriately fired long-term personnel in its travel office; had been inappropriately ?selling? access to White House coffees and overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign contributors; and had used the White House security chief to compile an ?enemies list.?

GOP investigations also focused on whether then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt demanded campaign contributions from Native American tribes in exchange for policy influence; whether the White House had sought out illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals; and of course, whether President Clinton did in fact have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. The last led to impeachment hearings in 1999.

"It is not unusual that when a new party takes control, particularly when the party is different from the party of the president, that there would be oversight hearings. That is exactly what the Republicans did in 1995 when they took over, when Clinton was president when they won the House. They started having hearings about what things the Clinton administration was doing," Frost said.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, who served as a Republican from Georgia but is now libertarian, said Democrats wouldn't have as much steam if the GOP had been responsible during the first six years of the Bush administration.

?The real thing to keep in perspective is that the Bush administration has been basically on a oversight holiday since it took over in 2001," Barr said. "The Congress under Republican control conducted absolutely no meaningful oversight. Any oversight investigations by the Democrats are going to seem like an awful lot, when it really isn?t."

Posted by David Watson Ha ha. Nice of you to chop what I said to somehow make your case. Cherry picking, just like Bush. Again, no one has a problem with presidents dumping folks at the beginning of a term. Red flags rise when it's a few people with excellent records out of the blue. And Bush said he didn't choose the 9...which is why his executive privileged is being challenged. Cherry picker. Ha ha.

I chopped your post because everything past becasue he could, just like every other president was pure Democrat Talking Points. I would strongly suggest that your hatred for anything Bush clouds your best judgment which is indicative of your name-calling. Whether you admit it or not we both know this is a Political Stunt designed for retribution against Rove and Bolten who are very outspoken towards the Democrat Party. Personally, I had hoped for better Legislation from this Democratic Controlled Congress and House, but with a dis-approval rating of 89% the Democrats should hold their heads in shame. Oh yea, I have picked Cotton, but never Cherries. And with that, I bid you a Good Day Sir.

Oh wait, I do have one thing to ask Hugs ; Does your Parole Officer know you have access to a Computer ?

Okay, so no laws were broken or even suspected of being broken in the firing of the 9 U.S. Attorneys.
So, everything else about this case is irrelevant. This investigation is nothing less than the Senate attempting to exceed its authority.
Yes, it is just that simple.

hug the moon, You should change your handle to back of the moon. Your post has no basis in fact, just opinions. RAF
Posted By: RAF | December 13, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Then maybe you will be the one who will finally paste a link to the fact that a plane hit the pentagon. Link us to the footage. Establish credibility as opposed to attacking credibility. Where are YOUR facts? link us to the video why don't ya?
Oh yea I am the backwards one. Admit it, you have never seen an AA plane go into the pentagon in clear footage. Why are you defending what you have not seen?

To Moonbat, whoops I mean hug the moon.
I run a pharmacy and I have every inch of it under surveillance by state of the art cameras. Two weeks ago a kid ran accross my store and straight into a customer. I saw it with my own eyes. The kid said that the customer knocked him down and that he was not running . The parent was threatening to sue me and the customer. I pulled the disc and watched the replay of the event. The child was running so fast that the cameras could not pick him up, it was just a blank picture. The man standing there then a child laying on the ground next to him, nothing in between. If the camera can not focus fast enough there will be no picture. But you are a 9-11 truther so you don't care about facts or science, just some evil one world government conspiracy theory.

The WAPO blasts the Dems disunity and silly campaigns in today's paper. It tells us that on all the main issues the Dems are caving in. So the Dems indict, they call for investigations, they go after Bushies like Bolton and Rove. Why? Their hatred outpoints their understanding of issues that American voters might accept. The Pubs should take advantage of this. Follow the Newt plan of '94. The discombobulated Dems are a danger to American even more as they open their mouths on a daily level.

You are seriously going to compare you vid system and a kid running against the technology that watches over the pentagon? Or of a plane a giant plane coming in from miles out? Get real. The truthers want facts, not this. That is like saying NY is the most populated city because I live there and I see a bunch of people everywhere.
If someone drove a car into a mini mart it would be all over the news that night. And given your "explanation" Let us see the footage even if it is garbled. We should have about 100 unique angles of such footage.
I never mention conspiracy or controlled demolition or bush or nothing but Vid footage of an attack on a building that is draped in cameras. You still had footage and a camera of a kid running in your store, So where is the footage from all the other cameras? at the pentagon? even if garbled, lets see em. What have we got to lose?

Leahy is just mad because Cheney called him an idiot, an I am paraphrasing to keep it clean. With all the investigations, all the documents, all the high priced lawyers that Congress has used, name one person that has been convicted of a crime. Libby does not count. They cannot even find a Crime as yet. I will tell you the Crime, there wasting out time an money, an should all be kicked out come the next election.

Where does Leahy or any other Senator get the idea that they have "oversight" of the President? I just re-read the U.S. Constitution (it really doesn't take very long) and there is no mention of any such authority given to the Senate. In fact, if you look into history, the first George (that would be Washington for all you liberals who haven't cracked a history book since junior high) made it very clear from his first year in office that the Legislative Branch does not oversee the President. Who cares what other Congresses have done since WWII--if it's not in the U.S. Constitution, the authority doesn't exist! Plain and simple.

So many people are missing the point. There is no question that congressional oversight and investigation are constitutionally entrenched. There is no question that Federal Prosecutors serve at the "pleasure" of the President. There is no question that recent Presidents have fired some or all Federal Prosecutors. The problem people, lies with the timing of these firings. When it happens in the middle of the President's term in office and while local elections are being contemplated, it becomes suspicious. I stress very well on the word suspicious because nobody other than the fired prosecutors claimed that they were fired for political reasons. That being said, it is the Congress' duty to get to the bottom of the controversy, because despite the fact that we all agree that these prosecutors all serve at the "pleasure" of the President, let's not forget that the Justice Department (under which these prosecutors serve) is the government Agency that decides whether or not to bring criminal prosecution against government and/or private officials charged with any federal crimes. To politicize this Department would deal a great blow to our justice system and the balance of powers so dear to our democratic system. Federal prosecutors serve at the "pleasure" of the President, I concede this point, but they do not follow the orders or take orders from the President.
Concerning precedents by former Presidents, and particularly the Clinton administration, I would like to emphasize that President Clinton fired all Federal Prosecutors immediately after taking the oath of office, whether they were Dems or Repubs, and the firings did not occur because they would not prosecute Republican officials to impose the Dems base and influence, as it was/is alleged by the Prosecutors in the case in the current debate.
Whether the Bush administration did anything wrong in these firings is something only them can come clean on, instead of claiming executive privilege as if the term was just recently invented and only them knew the meaning and extent it.
Independently yours.

Wow a new investigation from the dems. I agree Specter should have been removed from this committee. Everyone remembers how he begged and nearly came to tears. If the Senate Republicans had selected Mitch McConnell majority leader rather than the beloved (mealy mouthed)Tennessee Heart Surgeon they would still have the majority. Oh yes can anyone remember the obstruction tactics of the Democrat minority in the Senate?

Oh yea, I have picked Cotton, but never Cherries. And with that, I bid you a Good Day Sir.
Ha ha. Love it. :)

------------------------

I would strongly suggest that your hatred for anything Bush clouds your best judgment which is indicative of your name-calling.
There's a lot of name calling here, some in jest, some with malice. Mostly (not all) is in jest.

I do hate Bush and I openly admit it. He seems like a nice enough fellow, but he has done more harm to this republic than any president ever. The checks and balances in the constitution were put there for a Bush type president. An imperial president is bad, they knew it way back then.

Anyhow, I think loving all things Bush is hurting the country. To side with Bush you have side with the end of habeas corpus. It's not just for suspected terrorists (who have not been charged and will not be going to trial) Americans overseas are being caught up in it too. Hating Bush doesn't mean we'd welcome such a thing if another president tried it. But siding with Bush you side with the death of this civil right. You side with torture. Bush lies that we don't torture but there were tapes of torture...oops, destroyed tapes. There is proof of torture from past agents. Up until now we did not torture. But to protect Bush you have to side with torture. Something other countries will do to our troops. We can't prosecute Al Queda or Iran for war crimes if they're doing what we're doing. Loving Bush means ending "justice for all". The DOJ has taken to prosecuting cases based on political preference. Something everyone should be against because eventually the other party will be in the white house and justice shouldn't be applied based on party. But to love Bush, you have to accept the destruction of our legal system. To love Bush means you are for the kidnapping of people from other countries and holding them without trial...not just terrorists as we recently told the British...ANYONE. We are becoming a lawless nation. I think one can hate Bush and still be on the side of the constitution and human rights. But to love Bush, and to go along with every bad idea he has...I think that's worse.

One of the funniest things I saw on tv and I wish I taped it, it was all the republicans stumbling to find a way to agree with Cheney that he wasn't part of the executive branch...because to love Bush you must accept any crazy notion that is stated. To avoid that pesky oversight dictators hate so much, Cheney claimed he wasn't part of the executive branch...and people on tv and here were...oh okay, yeah, he's probably right. Party loyalty hurts the country more because it forces you to accept any craziness the party wants. The funny thing about Cheney, three years earlier he tried to avoid oversight in some other matter by saying since he WAS part of the executive branch he couldn't turn over documents. To love Bush is to embrace and enable and sign off on liars simply because they're of the same party. The thing about people that don't want oversight...it's because they're doing something bad.

With all the investigations, all the documents, all the high priced lawyers that Congress has used, name one person that has been convicted of a crime. Libby does not count. They cannot even find a Crime as yet.

It's kind of hard to find a crime when the suspects keep hiding the evidence. Look, it all ends when Bush gives up trying to cover up. No crime, why cover up? Saying go away, don't look at what I do is the talk of a dictator. Saddam didn't like oversight either.

David, thank the troops who have volunteered to defend your wild opinions. I hate to tell you, but history will judge President Bush alot kinder then you may believe today. The tackiness of the left will hardly be remembered just as critics throughout history have faded next to men of action, honor and conviction. Have a nice day!

John Dean had it right ... worse than Watergate. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the White House claims of executive privilege could not overcome investigations of potentially criminal behavior.
Congress actually has legal authority to arrest, charge and try these guys -- and should exercise it.
William

I see comments again calling for the impeachment of Bush. There is a reason that does not happen, there is no evidence of anything impeachable. This is simple Bush hatred, when the republicans win the presidency next year that hatred will migrate to the new president. The hatred is unfounded, any republican will do. They still can't get over their loser was impeached for lying under oath, and the second loser Gore is an idiot that needs to report to an insane asylum.

To the coward that cant leave his name: if laws were broken, then impeachment is proper, nuff said. So, stop obstructing the investigation and let the real TRUTH come out. If bush wasnt trying to hide the truth so hard, you wouldnt see any contempt resolutions. None of this has anything to do with Bill Clinton. Also, stop being a coward throwing around flamebait and hateful words. Be a man for once in your miserable life.

I hate to tell you, but history will judge President Bush alot kinder then you may believe today. The tackiness of the left will hardly be remembered just as critics throughout history have faded next to men of action, honor and conviction.

The one comfort in this mess that I have is that history will give Bush the same thrashing it has Benedict Arnold. But it's a small comfort because it doesn't nothing now. It does nothing for the children he's denying health coverage to, it does nothing now for the politicized DOJ, it does nothing for the troops he sent to die on Iraq information he knew was false...it does nothing now for the debt our grandkids will have to pay when the TRILLIONS he has spent on this war of BORROWED money comes due. Nor the fight our grandkids will probably have when the kids in the middle east come looking for revenge their broken country and have only America to blame. Again. Iraq never attacked us. Al Queda wasn't in Iraq until we brought them there. Deny reality all you want now but history will not do so. Historians will ask the hundreds of intelligence agents who brought forth opposite conclusions than this madman at the start of the war. History will note that experienced officers, translators, diplomats were relieved from Iraq early on because they were democrats and were replaced with inexperienced young republicans. Our media has given him a pass, but Bush can't hide his misdeeds from history...there are too many people in the administration that know the truth....and I take some comfort in that.

If Rove and Bolton have nothing to hide, why aren't they testifying? It is not as if the hiring and firring of attorneys is a state secret covered by presidential confidentiality, and the Congress has a duty to investigate allegations.

David, your opinions are not backed up by facts or anything other than the fringe left websites you recite. Your lack of independent critical thought exposes you. I'm sorry you are filled with such irrational hate, I think the term these days is Bush Derangement Syndrome. I feel sorry for you.

To John Ben, if you are a dem, you are automatically a coward.
Ha ha, cute argument. Ouch. Debate coach must be proud. It's funny, you look down the roster of democrat congressmen and senators and there are so many war veterans there...folks who know a little something about war and consequences. On the war mongering republican side.....whole lotta deferments. Hmmmmmm.

David, your opinions are not backed up by facts or anything other than the fringe left websites you recite. Your lack of independent critical thought exposes you. I'm sorry you are filled with such irrational hate, I think the term these days is Bush Derangement Syndrome. I feel sorry for you.

Ha ha. I'm always amused by these type of comments. I realize facts are meaningless to republicans. Only their flawed ideology. When the report about Iran came out republicans don't believe it, they cling to their flawed beliefs. What do you refute? Did Saddam attack America? Did we find weapons? Do you disbelieve the stacks of reports that show that Iraq posed no threat and Bush read them and ignored them? Do you refute the accounts of Curve Ball who our CIA exposed as being a liar on Iraq info? Republicans cling to their fantasy and anything that tries to get through that bubble is labeled false. Like those who believe the world is under 10,000 years old despite the evidence of dinosaur bones dated way way way older than that. The documents are out there and when we have a democrat president most of it will be declassified. But delusional republicans will still call them false. Historians won't, however.

senate judiciary! senate judiciary! excuse me. it was the f**king libs. notice the vote count. 12 to 7--get it. who controls congress. to all you dumb assholes who gave control to these idiots ya did a good thing there. kudos to all of ya's. f**king morons!

This Administration has done so much over the past 7 years to undermine the people of this country. It's about time the Congress demands answers for their corrupt activities. Bring home the troops, Iraq is not a war, it's an occupation of another country for the good of this Administration and big Oil companies.

Congress bunch of witch hunting clowns. Mr Spectre is pathetic.
This is one of those, you said, I said fights that mean nothing.
Run another poll, maybe Congress will go negative, what then. Cite Congress?

no wonder why the democrats can do anything. they are an embarrassment. botox pelosi and dingy harry reid their leadership have failed. they hate america and are not interested protecting america. only thing they are interested is raising taxes! when are they really going protect america before we get hit again by these terrorist.

[i] It does nothing for the children he's denying health coverage to, it does nothing now for the politicized DOJ, it does nothing for the troops he sent to die on Iraq information he knew was false...[/i]First off, you still have yet to put forth the case that something[i]illegal[/i] occured in firing anyone of the US attorney's. Furthermore, why should the congress need consulting on the firing of anyone of them? Not even the most liberal interpetation of congresses duties would someone get that (although I admit, the most wrongheaded and niave might).
But I do appreciate you posted your denial of stark facts: 1)Republicans tried to pass an extension of the SCHIP program as it existed for years (which they created), yet Dems want all kids in families with incomes up to 76,000 dollars a year (well well well above the mean family income) to recieve federal paid healthcare. 2) Any administration has the right to steer the DOJ as they see fit, this is why they get to name the Attorney General. It's not like you can demonstrate (try, please) that there is either rampant crime by republicans that are either going unpunished, or that dems are being falsely brought up on charges by this "politicized DOJ". 3) Prove it. Prove how this imbecile (as you undboutedly believe) got not only the CIA and NIE to go along with falsifying reports, but that of Clinton (both bill and Hillary), France, Germany, Isreal, England, etc, etc to come to the same conclusions...before Bush was ever even in office?
Furthermore, to demonstrate how disconnected from reality you are, you even posted about Bush, "[i]He seems like a nice enough fellow, but he has...[/i]"
Okay, you post he seems like a nice enough fellow, but that he [i]knowingly[/i] sent troops to die for no reason? If that's not the [i]very[/i] description of evil, then what is? You are completely illogical besides getting virtually everything factual incorrect. You'll believe whatever you want only to serve your own twisted worldview.

Big deal. They'll never go after Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

I find it very interesting that the Senate ( and the House ) find it compelling to try to be judges and prosecuters since they are so inept as legislators.
If that is the best they can do, perhaps they should apply to be judges and abandon their careers as legislators. Since the Senate is lax as approvers for judges, they will be gainfully unemployes.

yet something new to "keep the American people occupied"
...please - do you reeeally think this is necessary? absolutely not, but at a 30% approval rating, Congress needs to make it look like they're doing something, dont they?
http://njchristiansforhuckabee.wordpress.com

This is by far the worst undermining of our government and our country. By politicizing the justice department and destroying the rule of law we are no longer free.
The USA's that were fired were fired because either they wouldn't do what they were told in a political sense, or they were doing their jobs prosecuting criminals, i.e. Duke Cunningham and were getting to closed to throwing other corrupt ReTHUGlicans in jail, i.e. Jerry Lewis. Either way, they had to be removed to be replaced with political hacks.
Makes you wonder what the other USA's had to do to keep their jobs.
If ever one wanted to overthrow our country, they would first corrupt the justice department.
We are losing our country and the GOPper Sheeple are letting it happen.

This is a riot. Now democrats want to prosecute the executive branch officials for DOING THE JOB THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO DO, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA. Maybe the congress should start doing their own job instead of criminalizing the executive branch for carrying out its Constitutionally mandated official duties. Too bad congress can't even pass a bill to support our soldiers on the battlefield.

If any of you morons will take the time to find out why Bush fired these attorneys, 2 where fired for failure to their jobs, the rest where fired because they refused to prosecute Democrat Voter Fraud cases, including ACORN and in Washington state the republican won the election for Governor by 1325 votes, but after 3 recounts the Union leaders found 1500 plus ballots in a wharehouse they owned and the changed the election and he fired the Attorney who would not investigate or prosecute this case, all 9 of these attorney's where Clinton apointed! One case the Attorney refused to go after Mexican national illegals that voted democrat!
I want Mr depends leaky leahy to be brought up on treason! Check out why he got booted from the intelegence committy in 1985, he leaked info tom the NYT what a shock but the info killed 100 or more agents in South America he deemed it that he was saving the lives of our enemy!
93 attorneys Bill Clinton fired including the one who was about to indict Bill and Hillary for Whitewater, he needed cover so he fired 93 leaving the rest who where part of the Clinton network!
Moonbat hm I think most people never go after facts, these atourneys belong to the President and he can fire anyone of them for any reason, But Bill an Hill Clinton should have been presecuted and removed from office in 1993!

First off, you still have yet to put forth the case that something[i]illegal[/i] occurred in firing anyone

Second off, I realize listening interferes with flawed ideology folks, but it's been stated at least 9 times here that no is
claiming a law was broken. The problem is the improperness of it and the cover up. No crime, why all the blockage? Tell me with
a straight face that you wouldn't have a problem with Prez Hillary blocking an investigation? You're a loyal Bushie, he can do no wrong,
anything said against him is a lie and everyone saying it is a leftie. I don't know if it's more sad or more pathetic. I feel sorry for you
when you have to read the history books to your grandchildren about this war criminal. There is no way he can't be listed as such. There are
too many people willing to spill the beans. But I digress. The no crime has been found position is a position of fools. Unless they're caught red
handed crimes are uncovered through an investigation. You don't have to be Matlock to grasp something so infinitely simple. So, when someone is actively
bending over backwards to thwart an investigation...that's a problem...9 out of 10 people thwart investigations because they don't want to be caught.
How about you prove he's not guilty of anything. Where is your proof? Come on, I'm waiting....I'm not getting any younger here, where's your proof?
Unless you believe in dictatorships, then POSSIBLE wrongdoing needs to be investigated, and I'm suspicious of high ranking people who block investigations.
Kinda like Nixon. Didn't he do something awhile back. Tried to block the investigation. Even fired the investigator. But I'm sure he did nothing wrong
being a good Republican and all.

Furthermore, why should the congress need consulting on the firing of anyone of them?

Who said they did? Attorneys with good records were fired out of the blue, they all have stories of republican interference. It's improper. And if any
were fired to stop an investigation into a republican...oh...THAT IS a crime. The whole "pleasure" thing doesn't mean squat in that case. And thus to find out,
and in the real non republican world, we have investigations to see if a crime has been committed.

This is what happens when you politicize the DOJ. This link isn't for you, idealogs won't believe the story, nothing penetrates that all things
republican are good bubble, this is for the rest of us, those capable of rational thought.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/not_fired_us_at.html

1)Republicans tried to pass an extension of the SCHIP program as it existed for years
(which they created), yet Dems want all kids in families with incomes up to 76,000 dollars a year (well well well above the
mean family income) to receive federal paid healthcare.

I know Republicans only like giving money and tax breaks to the wealthy and big business and I can see why they'd have a problem with the only 76,000 crowd.
But the point of the increase is to include families who make above the minimum but still can't afford insurance. I'm sure you manage your money well and
can make do on less than 76,000, but a few folks are having difficulty....and so, in compassionate conservative world...screw the kids. Daddy needs to work
at McDonalds.

Any administration has the right to steer the DOJ as they see fit,

No said they didn't. No one disputes that. But the line is drawn forcing the DOJ to commit and cover up crimes. Like
prosecuting innocent democrats right before an election in a key state. Ain't no pleasure in that.

It's not like you can demonstrate (try, please) that there is either rampant
crime by republicans that are either going unpunished, or that dems are being falsely brought up on charges by this "politicized DOJ".

I refer you to the above link. As for rampant....how about YOU prove there ISN'T. Neither of us can prove diddly. All we know is what we read. Try Google
and you'll find more links like above. Our MN attorney had to leave in disgrace last month. This is why there is an investigation. To find out if it's
rampant or isolated. Bush and his cronies would do well to cooperate or leave people with the impression (except delusional bushies) that he's covering
stuff up...a lot like Nixon. Not that Nixon ever had anything to hide. Ha ha.

Prove how this imbecile (as you undoubtedly believe) got not only the CIA and NIE to go along with falsifying reports,
but that of Clinton (both bill and Hillary), France, Germany, Isreal, England,

I'm not getting the point exactly, but no one is accusing this idiot of falsifying anything. The credible allegation is that there were dozens of reports
that said Iraq wasn't a threat. This idiot cherry picked and chose the couple reports that aligned with his flawed ideology...like a true republican.
So, unless you have proof that Saddam had weapons and Saddam was involved in 9/11 maybe we should lay off the prove it mantra. Like the old line during
Monicagate "for Clinton to be telling the truth ALL these dozens of people have to be lying". The same applies to Bush (see how that all comes around to bite republicans?)
all the intelligence agents who have come forward and produced unclassified sections of reports that showed they warned the president Iraq wasn't a threat
and that most of the "evidence" was forged...all these folks (try google) have to be lying in order for Bush to be telling the truth. And we all know
Bush has never been caught in a lie. Yeah. What does this have to do with Bill and Hilary??? Any excuse to bring up Clinton. That old Clinton hate machine.
Oh, here's something about Bill. He left a report for Bush about the dangers of Bin Laden. Bush (admitted to it....try google) threw it out. Didn't see
a threat there. Couple that with Condi's blowing off a report about planes....yep, great leadership there. History will be very very very kind to Bushie.

Furthermore, to demonstrate how disconnected from reality you are, you even posted about Bush, "[i]He seems
like a nice enough fellow, but he has...[/i]" Okay, you post he seems like a nice enough fellow, but that he [i]knowingly[/i] sent troops
to die for no reason? If that's not the [i]very[/i] description of evil, then what is?

I never said he was evil. Think he's an idiot. I drink beer with a lot of idiots. I think he really thought we could go into Iraq and be out in a
few weeks....because....he's an idiot. His daddy was asked why never went into Iraq. His answer (google, baby) was that if you go into Iraq you'll never leave,
it'll be a quagmire and a huge mistake. But idiots never listen...all they know is that failed ideology that they cling to no matter what. We gotta stay
until we win...which translate when we're bankrupt and out of troops....which is just what Bin Laden wants (or a date with Jennifer Love Hewitt, I can't
understand his tapes). Cheney is evil. Pure evil. Try youtube under Cheney and you'll find a video of him talking about what a mistake it would be to go
into Iraq. He predicted EVERY bad thing that has happened so far. So he knew well what would happen now. He used this and the lives of our troops for
a power grab. And I'm sure he'll burn in hades for it.

If any of you morons will take the time to find out why Bush fired these attorneys, 2 where fired for failure to their jobs, the rest where fired because they refused to prosecute Democrat Voter Fraud cases, including ACORN and in Washington state the republican won the election for Governor by 1325 votes, but after 3 recounts the Union leaders found 1500 plus ballots in a wharehouse they owned and the changed the election and he fired the Attorney who would not investigate or prosecute this case, all 9 of these attorney's where Clinton apointed! One case the Attorney refused to go after Mexican national illegals that voted democrat! I want Mr depends leaky leahy to be brought up on treason! Check out why he got booted from the intelegence committy in 1985, he leaked info tom the NYT what a shock but the info killed 100 or more agents in South America he deemed it that he was saving the lives of our enemy! 93 attorneys Bill Clinton fired including the one who was about to indict Bill and Hillary for Whitewater, he needed cover so he fired 93 leaving the rest who where part of the Clinton network! Moonbat hm I think most people never go after facts, these atourneys belong to the President and he can fire anyone of them for any reason, But Bill an Hill Clinton should have been presecuted and removed from office in 1993!
OMG. Please...please tell me you are not breeding.

It is very clear that EVERY TIME the White House changes parties, US attorneys are replaced. The suggestion that President Clinton did something unusual or unethical is misleading, and the notion that what the Bush Administration did is comparable to what President Clinton - or any other previous president - did is frankly a lie.
Midterm replacements are extremely rare.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/03/23/update-clinton-talking-point-originated-at-doj.htm
I don't know why so many Republican posters are concerned about Congress supposedly "wasting time" on this issue. Congress is certainly capable of handling investigative roles as well as passing legislation. How much time do you think the Justice Department wasted firing eight perfectly good, highly rated attorneys for no apparent reason and finding eight more to replace them? No outrage over that loss of time and taxpayer dollars?

SPECTER IS A DISLOYAL SHILL. JUST A FEW DAYS AGO BUSH PARDONED SAUL KAPLAN, SPECTERS PARTNER IN CRIME AND CHIEF MONEY LAUNDERER.
Posted By: TJD | December 13, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Are you suggesting that because President Bush gave a pardon to Senator Specter's "PARTNER IN CRIME AND CHIEF MONEY LAUNDERER", the Senator shopuld have responded by altering his vote to pay back the President for pardoning a criminal?
It's disappointing when you don't get special treatment in exchange for your attempts at influence-peddling isn't it?
Oh, and would you mind taking your caps lock off? It's generally considered impolite to SHOUT through your entire post. Thanks!